Perjury in the small claims court

Post by SighFi
I have started a claim in the small claims court and the defendant is
lying in his defence statement.
I notice they say the standard of evidence is lower in this court with no
need to take an oath, so I was wondering if that was a licence to commit
perjury.
The defendant is in my opinion a consummate fraudster, from the
fraudulent advert for the car through various other lies omissions and
twists of the truth and downright rudeness, though this person is also
one of the smarmiest so and so's I have met and I am not confident he wont
pull some masonic distress signal stunt on the judge or otherwise convince
the judge of his innocence.
So does the offence of perjury exists in small claims cases?

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies, and
it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the judge to
commit the defendant for perjury.

SighFi

2006-04-04 10:47:51 UTC

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies, and
it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the judge to
commit the defendant for perjury.

This obviously what the car dealer conman bloke meant when he said to me
"I know the law"

So, I have to prove this person is deliberately lying and not just
repeatedly making factual mistakes because he is going senile or something.

Very convenient for the liar.

Andrew McGee

2006-04-04 11:49:43 UTC

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies,
and it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the judge
to commit the defendant for perjury.

surely it would be for contempt, not perjury. The Defence is not on oath or
affirmation - it has a statement of truth but that is not the same thing..

The authority is CPR 32.14

(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a
statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth.)
(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only-
(a) by the Attorney General; or
(b) with the permission of the court.

I may say that I have never known it to happen, even where verified
documents have been shown to be plainly false. I once had the other side
threaten to do it to a client of mine, but nothing ever came of it.

Andrew McGee

The Todal

2006-04-04 12:12:43 UTC

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies,
and it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the judge
to commit the defendant for perjury.

surely it would be for contempt, not perjury. The Defence is not on oath
or affirmation - it has a statement of truth but that is not the same
thing..
The authority is CPR 32.14
(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if
he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified
by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth.)
(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only-
(a) by the Attorney General; or
(b) with the permission of the court.
I may say that I have never known it to happen, even where verified
documents have been shown to be plainly false. I once had the other side
threaten to do it to a client of mine, but nothing ever came of it.

Interesting - I don't know the answer. I think it could be perjury as well
as contempt - perhaps this case is on point:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/715.html
"There is a plain inconsistency between that omission from the discussions
and the pleadings; but a mere inconsistency, as the cases show, is not
sufficient to amount to unambiguous impropriety. What has to appear very
clearly from the evidence is that Mr. Ghadimi was guilty of perjury in
signing the statement of truth as to his belief in the truth of the pleaded
facts and in deposing to the sum claimed in the counterclaim as owed to him.
We do not see how it can be said that that is shown, still less if account
is taken of the explanation by Mr. Ghadimi, supported as it is by Mr. Buss,
to which we have referred in paras. 23 and 24 above. "

Andrew McGee

2006-04-04 17:15:58 UTC

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies,
and it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the
judge to commit the defendant for perjury.

surely it would be for contempt, not perjury. The Defence is not on oath
or affirmation - it has a statement of truth but that is not the same
thing..
The authority is CPR 32.14
(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if
he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified
by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth.)
(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only-
(a) by the Attorney General; or
(b) with the permission of the court.
I may say that I have never known it to happen, even where verified
documents have been shown to be plainly false. I once had the other side
threaten to do it to a client of mine, but nothing ever came of it.

Interesting - I don't know the answer. I think it could be perjury as well
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/715.html
"There is a plain inconsistency between that omission from the discussions
and the pleadings; but a mere inconsistency, as the cases show, is not
sufficient to amount to unambiguous impropriety. What has to appear very
clearly from the evidence is that Mr. Ghadimi was guilty of perjury in
signing the statement of truth as to his belief in the truth of the
pleaded facts and in deposing to the sum claimed in the counterclaim as
owed to him. We do not see how it can be said that that is shown, still
less if account is taken of the explanation by Mr. Ghadimi, supported as
it is by Mr. Buss, to which we have referred in paras. 23 and 24 above. "

I think the only real explanation of this is in the reference to Mr G
'deposing to' facts i.e confirming the statement at trial.

I do not see how perjury has anything to do with a pleading. The authority
is the Perjury Act 1911, s1, which so far as presently material reads

Perjury Act 1911, Ch. 6, s. 1 (Eng.)

1 Perjury

(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a
judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding,
which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be
guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable
to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment
with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine
or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

(2) The expression "judicial proceeding" includes a proceeding before any
court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine
evidence on oath.

(3) Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not
made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person
authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the
statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the
purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial
proceeding.

But it is quite clear that this applies only to statements by witnesses made
on oath (this must apply now equally to affirmation, since anyone who
objects to being sworn is entitled to affirm - Oaths Act 1978 s5 - but it
remains beyond doubt that pleadings are not on oath.

Andrew McGee

The Todal

2006-04-04 19:42:25 UTC

Post by Andrew McGee
I do not see how perjury has anything to do with a pleading. The authority
is the Perjury Act 1911, s1, which so far as presently material reads
Perjury Act 1911, Ch. 6, s. 1 (Eng.)
1 Perjury
(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a
judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that
proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he
shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on
indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven
years, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not
exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or
imprisonment and fine.
(2) The expression "judicial proceeding" includes a proceeding before any
court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and
examine evidence on oath.
(3) Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is
not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person
authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the
statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the
purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial
proceeding.
But it is quite clear that this applies only to statements by witnesses
made on oath (this must apply now equally to affirmation, since anyone who
objects to being sworn is entitled to affirm - Oaths Act 1978 s5 - but it
remains beyond doubt that pleadings are not on oath.

I think you are probably right - though we aren't really supposed to speak
of "pleadings" nowadays (they are more properly statements of case) and it
is now very rare for evidence to be given to a court on affidavit in any
application to the court. Usually a witness statement, ending in a Statement
of Truth, will satisfy the rules. It seems rather an anachronism to require
a person to be "duly sworn" even if it only involves affirming, before he is
liable to prosecution for perjury. I haven't seen the full text of the 1911
Perjury Act and s.5 refers to perjury otherwise than when on oath, but it
might be stretching a point to apply that section to a witness statement.

SighFi

2006-04-04 12:58:54 UTC

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies,
and it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the judge
to commit the defendant for perjury.

surely it would be for contempt, not perjury. The Defence is not on oath or
affirmation - it has a statement of truth but that is not the same thing..
The authority is CPR 32.14
(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a
statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth.)
(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only-
(a) by the Attorney General; or
(b) with the permission of the court.
I may say that I have never known it to happen, even where verified
documents have been shown to be plainly false. I once had the other side
threaten to do it to a client of mine, but nothing ever came of it.
Andrew McGee

Thats a good one, "without an honest belief in the truth!"

I don't think a consummate habitual liar is going to admit he didn't
believe what he was saying was the truth.

Justice? Ragnar Redbeard style, just evolution deary.

Oh, and "with the permission of the court" right...

The Todal

2006-04-04 13:31:38 UTC

Post by SighFi

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies,
and it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the judge
to commit the defendant for perjury.

surely it would be for contempt, not perjury. The Defence is not on oath or
affirmation - it has a statement of truth but that is not the same thing..
The authority is CPR 32.14
(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a
statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth.)
(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only-
(a) by the Attorney General; or
(b) with the permission of the court.
I may say that I have never known it to happen, even where verified
documents have been shown to be plainly false. I once had the other side
threaten to do it to a client of mine, but nothing ever came of it.
Andrew McGee

Thats a good one, "without an honest belief in the truth!"
I don't think a consummate habitual liar is going to admit he didn't
believe what he was saying was the truth.
Justice? Ragnar Redbeard style, just evolution deary.
Oh, and "with the permission of the court" right...

You said that the defendant was lying in his Defence statement. I agree that
usually it is very difficult to prove that your opponents does not have an
honest belief in the truth of what he has said, but sometimes it happens, eg
if there are documents that prove he is lying.

SighFi

2006-04-04 14:01:32 UTC

Post by SighFi

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies,
and it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the judge
to commit the defendant for perjury.

surely it would be for contempt, not perjury. The Defence is not on oath or
affirmation - it has a statement of truth but that is not the same thing..
The authority is CPR 32.14
(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a
statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth.)
(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only-
(a) by the Attorney General; or
(b) with the permission of the court.
I may say that I have never known it to happen, even where verified
documents have been shown to be plainly false. I once had the other side
threaten to do it to a client of mine, but nothing ever came of it.
Andrew McGee

Thats a good one, "without an honest belief in the truth!"
I don't think a consummate habitual liar is going to admit he didn't
believe what he was saying was the truth.
Justice? Ragnar Redbeard style, just evolution deary.
Oh, and "with the permission of the court" right...

Well there is one letter I wrote, but he claims a 2 week delay on delivery
of that one, and in there I contradic hist statement before he made it in
his defence statement but still his word against mine.

SighFi

2006-04-04 14:08:40 UTC

Yes. If you were able to show that the Defence contains deliberate lies,
and it has been signed with a Statement of Truth, you could ask the judge
to commit the defendant for perjury.

surely it would be for contempt, not perjury. The Defence is not on oath or
affirmation - it has a statement of truth but that is not the same thing..
The authority is CPR 32.14
(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a
statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth.)
(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only-
(a) by the Attorney General; or
(b) with the permission of the court.
I may say that I have never known it to happen, even where verified
documents have been shown to be plainly false. I once had the other side
threaten to do it to a client of mine, but nothing ever came of it.
Andrew McGee

Thats a good one, "without an honest belief in the truth!"
I don't think a consummate habitual liar is going to admit he didn't
believe what he was saying was the truth.
Justice? Ragnar Redbeard style, just evolution deary.
Oh, and "with the permission of the court" right...

but there is also a copy of the fraudulent advert which is proved to be a
lie or as they like to term it "just a slight error",
and they had a disclaimer on the advert to say words to the effect that
"anything you read here in this advert could be bullshit! - please check
with a salesman"

When I spoke to the salesman he was big upping the price of the car
because of all the options it had on it, he did not say that the list of
the options in the advert was incorrect, but I didn't specifically check
with them that the advert was true, just took it as read given the soga
says adverts should not be incorrect.

when I did check with them if ABS and traction control were fitted they
first pissed me about telling me to come back in following monday
and when I did (waste even more of my time) they quickly confirmed it
wasn't and pointed me to the disclaimer in their advert.

Willy

2006-04-04 11:34:02 UTC

Post by SighFi
I am not confident he wont
pull some masonic distress signal stunt on the judge or otherwise convince
the judge of his innocence.

No worries on that front, every Masonic judge i have met will do the
reverse, the logic is simply this; if someone who has joined a society
of men that pride virtue and honour above all else, he should have
known better and such action is in the main inexcusable.

There are those that will disagree, but they tend to come tot he table
with little or no proof of any wrong doing.

SighFi

2006-04-04 12:12:25 UTC

Post by Willy

Post by SighFi
I am not confident he wont
pull some masonic distress signal stunt on the judge or otherwise convince
the judge of his innocence.

No worries on that front, every Masonic judge i have met will do the
reverse, the logic is simply this; if someone who has joined a society
of men that pride virtue and honour above all else, he should have
known better and such action is in the main inexcusable.
There are those that will disagree, but they tend to come tot he table
with little or no proof of any wrong doing.

Do they really pride (being a deadly sin...) virtue and honour above all
else, or as I have read, actually honour each other by rank above all else?

Hope the former is true and they also realise pride is a deadly sin.

Proof, well that is a questionable word as well given some of the cases
overturned recently, the licence the government seem to have to lie at
will (45 minutes, not about regime change etc.) and
certain people of authority (police) getting off with manslaughter at the
least. (Poor fellow needs a holiday... aaahhhh)

Pigs at the county council (spit) never gave me a holiday when they
accused me falsely of refusing to obey orders (firing squad for that
one...), the grunts just sacked me. Then the solicitor shot me in the foot
by not letting me know the date of the appeal until about 2 days before
and the appeal judge attacked me in his summing up because I
"sacked my solicitor" which was untrue as legal aid just did not cover for
a solicitor (in fact my solicitor advised me to lie about the
barrister not wanting to take my case) and I had 0 finances, though I
thought the solicitor was useless, and appeal judge also said I could not
be bothered to make it to the hearing also untrue because actually I could
not afford the train fare to London (I had no transport) and was ill at
the time plus the late notice from solicitor about the date of the hearing.

The OSS were a pointless show piece if you ask me like the PCC or
Ofwhatever.

So you see I have little faith in the legal (or any part of this) system
or the masons/templars/barristers that run this system. I doubt they
understand the words virtue and honour, but I am pretty sure they
understand the usefulness of lies and perjury (as per Machiavelli or
Redbeard) when on the balance its impossible to prove because of lack of
hard evidence (Its illegal to tape conversations secretly unless....) and
their loyalty oaths on pain of death to each other above all else.

Peter

2006-04-04 19:52:40 UTC